6 ms·

The link addresses just that: > The decision to acceed to the German Court's order to make items inaccessible from Germany is intended to be a temporary appeas

The link addresses just that: > The decision to acceed to the German Court's order to make items inaccessible from Germany is intended to be a temporary appeasement, while the appeal occurs - this is because the German appeal Court will likely look disfavorably on PGLAF if it shows contempt for the German Court.

raverbashing 9y ago
Well, no crap sherlock I don't see why Project Gutenberg thinks it isn't subject to German law. And yes, it sucks and it is against the spirit of the internet. But it's either them being sued or ISPs being ordered to block the website.
- freeflight 9y ago
  > But it's either them being sued or ISPs being ordered to block the website. Sued by whom? Afaik gutenberg.org is registered in California, no German jurisdiction, the cease&desist orders usually used to shut something like this down don't apply here. Same deal with ISPs: Afaik there's no legal framework to support anything like that, it's for exactly that reason why law firms like Waldorf and Frommer uses cease&desist letters to pretty much blackmail people into stopping the "distribution", it's all based on civil action.
  - Xylakant 9y ago
    > Afaik there's no legal framework to support anything like that, You might be careful with that assertion. As recently as Feb. 1st 2018 (so a month ago), Vodafone was compelled to block access to kinox.to in a preliminary injunction (1). The EUGH decided in 2014 that blocking pages is at least an option (2). This is contradictory to the EU e-commerce regulations, so the legality is somewhat murky at the moment, but it’s not definitely off the table. (1) https://netzpolitik.org/2018/netzsperren-vodafone-muss-kinox-to-blockieren-und-kundendaten-speichern/ https://netzpolitik.org/2018/netzsperren-vodafone-muss-kinox... (2) Telekabel Wien vs. Constantin Film http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=149924&pageIndex=0&doclang=de&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=515352 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&doc...
    - freeflight 9y ago
      I missed that, somewhat recent, development thank you for pointing this out. Still, as you said, this is legally murky and I wouldn't be too surprised if this turns out to be overturned again by a higher court. Some German courts have a reputation for quickly and easily siding with copyright claimants, just to have it overturned later by a higher instance. It's still really shitty that stuff like this keeps on happening and even when these claims turn out to be straight up scams (like that whole Redtube mess [0]) it has barely any real consequences in terms of laws being changed. [0] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13600869.2015.1012777?src=recsys https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13600869.2015.1...
      - Xylakant 9y ago
        The EUGH decision is fairly recent and it’s about as far up as possible. So I wouldn’t hold my breath unless the EU doubles down on net neutrality.
        freeflight 9y ago
        The EUGH link does not work, but the Vodafone case was a decision by a Munich court, which could still be overturned if somebody bothered going all the way up to the BVerfG.
        Xylakant 9y ago
        Odd, link works for me. In case you want to search for it, it’s lawsuit C‑314/12, the document identifier seems to be ECLI:EU:C:2014:192 Or you can follow the link in the first article to https://netzpolitik.org/2014/eugh-legt-zensur-grundlagen-netzsperren-bei-urheberrechtsverstoessen-zulaessig/ https://netzpolitik.org/2014/eugh-legt-zensur-grundlagen-net... which has a link to the court decision (grep for “Das Urteil”)
        freeflight 9y ago
        I'm getting a pretty weird CVRIA specific 404 (Page does not exist), in English and French when trying to access the link. Googling for "Telekabel Wien vs. Constantin Film" gives the same top result, but going through there also just gives me the same 404. Weird stuff going on at CVRIA?
  - raverbashing 9y ago
    Rights owners in Germany would request the blocking to the Justice system, due to theirs rights being violated If someone hosts a website in another country, hosting US copyrighted material, I assume something similar would happen if the site refused to take the material down
    - freeflight 9y ago
      The legalities behind this are mostly based on civil law and not as straight as some people here seem to think because German ISPs to have a certain level of protection, I can't remember the exact name of said legality (just imagine yet another very long German word, people familiar with Freifunker-Netz probably know this better), but it's pretty much a constant back and forth struggle.
    - pgeorgi 9y ago
      > a website in another country, hosting US copyrighted material, I assume something similar would happen if the site refused to take the material down https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2017/april/ustr-releases-2017-special-301-report https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-... is what happens. Being on the 301 report watch lists can have pretty nasty consequences in trade relations with the US.
- ori_b 9y ago
  > I don't see why Project Gutenberg thinks it isn't subject to German law. For the same reason that it's not subject to North Korean law, or Saudi law, or the laws of any tin pot dictatorship: It's not located there.
  - Xylakant 9y ago
    That’s just not how it works by any standard. Target users in a country, be subject to laws in that country. Basically all courts will assume jurisdiction by that rule. See for example the Mega case: Kim dotcom was a NZ resident, he was still prosecuted in the US. The critical question is enforcement: no US law enforcement would carry out a North Korean court order. Things get problematic if the is a viable enforcement route: you make profits in a country, you have a subsidiary in that country, you want to travel to that country or you have employees in that country that might have to take the fall for you. What do you think why Twitter and Facebook and Apple all mostly conform to Chinese Law with Apple even moving the chinese iCloud key to China? Project Gutenberg seems to have volunteers in Germany that could theoretically be personally targeted with a lawsuit for aiding copyright infringement. Now what? Claim US jurisdiction, lean back and wait? Expose them to that (unlikely) scenario? I, as a rights holder, if I’d really wanted to push this, would at least threaten to go down that route. Even if it’s later struck down, the hassle for the volunteers would be massive.
    - toast0 9y ago
      Does project Gutenberg identify their German based volunteers? Are they going to respond to a German order to identify them, assuming they're not responding to a German order to suppress books in the first place?
      - Xylakant 9y ago
        Up until now it was a no-brainer to identify with project Gutenberg, so the volunteers might have exposed themselves already. It probably still is, since the project complied with the court order. It’s mentioned in the plaintiffs argument which at least raises the possibility. So they might or might not be identifiable, but that question only matters for enforcement, not for the question of jurisdiction.
- weinzierl 9y ago
  First, I did not say they are not subject to German law. I said that if they argue that Copyright status in another country is irrelevant [1], that the copyright status in one country is not impacted or enforceable or otherwise relevant in other countries [2], that any attempts at enforcement of the judgement would need to occur in the US Court system and that the German Court has overstepped its jurisdiction [4], the only logical consequence would have been to just ignore a lawsuit filed in Germany. Why not wait and see if the publisher brings the case to a US court or follows the WIPO process? What harm could it do? [1] Copyright status in another country is not relevant to the legitimate ability of Project Gutenberg -- or anyone/anything in the US -- to make any use of these books. [2] International treaties explicitly and unambiguously support PGLAF's legal guidance as described above: that the copyright status in one country is not impacted or enforceable or otherwise relevant in other countries. [3] any attempts at enforcement of the judgement would need to occur in the US Court system [3] Because the German Court has overstepped its jurisdiction, and allowed the world's largest publishing group to bully Project Gutenberg for these 18 books [..] [4] The legal guidance PGLAF received is that US law requires that such proceedings would have taken place in the US, and in fact any attempts at enforcement of the judgement would need to occur in the US Court system. PGLAF already informed Plaintiff and the German Court that the US Court system is the appropriate venue for Plaintiff's concerns. Plaintiff declined.
  - raverbashing 9y ago
    Ah that's a better explanation Let's think of something different: I print one of those books and send it to Germany. I assume the person receiving the book could be subject to prosecution. But if the company that did that is also present in Germany (offers services in Germany) then I suspect they would be held responsible as well.
weinzierl 9y ago
The whole paragraph reads: > The decision to acceed to the German Court's order to make items inaccessible from Germany is intended to be a temporary appeasement, while the appeal occurs - this is because the German appeal Court will likely look disfavorably on PGLAF if it shows contempt for the German Court. Ultimately, PGLAF seeks to establish that any complaints about copyright must be brought either to the US Courts (where PGLAF operates) or WIPO processes (as guided by international treaties). And continues: > Q: Is there anything that can be done about the situation? > A: Project Gutenberg is fighting for an appeal. Ideas about how to appeal the case in German, and any possible legal actions in the US, are welcome. You can reach Dr. Newby by email, gbnewby AT pglaf.org. It says they have no idea how to appeal the case in Germany and the paragraph above basically says they have no real intention anyway because they want to bring the case either to an US Court or to the WIPO. I am highly sympathetic with the PGLAF but their argumentation is completely incongruent. Either they accept the jurisdiction of the German court, then they should appeal in Germany and the appeasement makes sense, or they don't, then they should just ignore it completely.
- smsm42 9y ago
  PGLAF thinks that the German court is wrong. However, they would prefer to not have German court decision - even if they believe it is wrong - against them to be in power, since international treaties mean it can have consequences beyond Germany. Thus, they are fighting it in German court. In order to raise chances of winning, they choose not to openly flaunt German court decision - which they can always do later if it turns out resolving it within German justice system is a no go. It is a common thing to do - you can disagree with some decision being legal and still temporary abide by it in order to work within the judicial system and not put yourself outside it.
  - weinzierl 9y ago
    > PGLAF thinks that the German court is wrong. They made that point in their article and they also made clear that this is not just their opinion but also that of their legal teams in the US and Germany. > However, they would prefer to not have German court decision - even if they believe it is wrong - against them to be in power, since international treaties mean it can have consequences beyond Germany. And that is my point. The best way to not have a German court decision would have been not to ask for one. They could have easily avoided the whole situation if they just ignored the lawsuit brought against them in Germany. > Thus, they are fighting it in German court. They are fighting in a German court, even if they could have avoided it, because they would prefer not to have a German court decision? That doesn't make any sense. > In order to raise chances of winning, they choose not to openly flaunt German court decision The way to avoid embarrassment on all sides would have been to ignore the lawsuit and point the publisher to the proper ways to handles this, namely either US court or WIPO. Being ignored by a US organization wouldn't have been a big deal neither for the German court nor the publishers, this happens all the time. I appreciate PGLAF highly, but what they did here just caused unnecessary drama. > - which they can always do later if it turns out resolving it within German justice system is a no go. Which would be the ultimate embarrassment for the German justice system, don't you think? > It is a common thing to do - you can disagree with some decision being legal and still temporary abide by it in order to work within the judicial system and not put yourself outside it. I agree with that, I just think that in this case there was no need for it. PGLAF could have avoided the situation without consequences.

raverbashing 9y ago

Well, no crap sherlock I don't see why Project Gutenberg thinks it isn't subject to German law. And yes, it sucks and it is against the spirit of the internet. But it's either them being sued or ISPs being ordered to block the website.

freeflight 9y ago
> But it's either them being sued or ISPs being ordered to block the website. Sued by whom? Afaik gutenberg.org is registered in California, no German jurisdiction, the cease&desist orders usually used to shut something like this down don't apply here. Same deal with ISPs: Afaik there's no legal framework to support anything like that, it's for exactly that reason why law firms like Waldorf and Frommer uses cease&desist letters to pretty much blackmail people into stopping the "distribution", it's all based on civil action.
- Xylakant 9y ago
  > Afaik there's no legal framework to support anything like that, You might be careful with that assertion. As recently as Feb. 1st 2018 (so a month ago), Vodafone was compelled to block access to kinox.to in a preliminary injunction (1). The EUGH decided in 2014 that blocking pages is at least an option (2). This is contradictory to the EU e-commerce regulations, so the legality is somewhat murky at the moment, but it’s not definitely off the table. (1) https://netzpolitik.org/2018/netzsperren-vodafone-muss-kinox-to-blockieren-und-kundendaten-speichern/ https://netzpolitik.org/2018/netzsperren-vodafone-muss-kinox... (2) Telekabel Wien vs. Constantin Film http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=149924&pageIndex=0&doclang=de&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=515352 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&doc...
  - freeflight 9y ago
    I missed that, somewhat recent, development thank you for pointing this out. Still, as you said, this is legally murky and I wouldn't be too surprised if this turns out to be overturned again by a higher court. Some German courts have a reputation for quickly and easily siding with copyright claimants, just to have it overturned later by a higher instance. It's still really shitty that stuff like this keeps on happening and even when these claims turn out to be straight up scams (like that whole Redtube mess [0]) it has barely any real consequences in terms of laws being changed. [0] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13600869.2015.1012777?src=recsys https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13600869.2015.1...
    - Xylakant 9y ago
      The EUGH decision is fairly recent and it’s about as far up as possible. So I wouldn’t hold my breath unless the EU doubles down on net neutrality.
      - freeflight 9y ago
        The EUGH link does not work, but the Vodafone case was a decision by a Munich court, which could still be overturned if somebody bothered going all the way up to the BVerfG.
        Xylakant 9y ago
        Odd, link works for me. In case you want to search for it, it’s lawsuit C‑314/12, the document identifier seems to be ECLI:EU:C:2014:192 Or you can follow the link in the first article to https://netzpolitik.org/2014/eugh-legt-zensur-grundlagen-netzsperren-bei-urheberrechtsverstoessen-zulaessig/ https://netzpolitik.org/2014/eugh-legt-zensur-grundlagen-net... which has a link to the court decision (grep for “Das Urteil”)
        freeflight 9y ago
        I'm getting a pretty weird CVRIA specific 404 (Page does not exist), in English and French when trying to access the link. Googling for "Telekabel Wien vs. Constantin Film" gives the same top result, but going through there also just gives me the same 404. Weird stuff going on at CVRIA?
- raverbashing 9y ago
  Rights owners in Germany would request the blocking to the Justice system, due to theirs rights being violated If someone hosts a website in another country, hosting US copyrighted material, I assume something similar would happen if the site refused to take the material down
  - freeflight 9y ago
    The legalities behind this are mostly based on civil law and not as straight as some people here seem to think because German ISPs to have a certain level of protection, I can't remember the exact name of said legality (just imagine yet another very long German word, people familiar with Freifunker-Netz probably know this better), but it's pretty much a constant back and forth struggle.
  - pgeorgi 9y ago
    > a website in another country, hosting US copyrighted material, I assume something similar would happen if the site refused to take the material down https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2017/april/ustr-releases-2017-special-301-report https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-... is what happens. Being on the 301 report watch lists can have pretty nasty consequences in trade relations with the US.
ori_b 9y ago
> I don't see why Project Gutenberg thinks it isn't subject to German law. For the same reason that it's not subject to North Korean law, or Saudi law, or the laws of any tin pot dictatorship: It's not located there.
- Xylakant 9y ago
  That’s just not how it works by any standard. Target users in a country, be subject to laws in that country. Basically all courts will assume jurisdiction by that rule. See for example the Mega case: Kim dotcom was a NZ resident, he was still prosecuted in the US. The critical question is enforcement: no US law enforcement would carry out a North Korean court order. Things get problematic if the is a viable enforcement route: you make profits in a country, you have a subsidiary in that country, you want to travel to that country or you have employees in that country that might have to take the fall for you. What do you think why Twitter and Facebook and Apple all mostly conform to Chinese Law with Apple even moving the chinese iCloud key to China? Project Gutenberg seems to have volunteers in Germany that could theoretically be personally targeted with a lawsuit for aiding copyright infringement. Now what? Claim US jurisdiction, lean back and wait? Expose them to that (unlikely) scenario? I, as a rights holder, if I’d really wanted to push this, would at least threaten to go down that route. Even if it’s later struck down, the hassle for the volunteers would be massive.
  - toast0 9y ago
    Does project Gutenberg identify their German based volunteers? Are they going to respond to a German order to identify them, assuming they're not responding to a German order to suppress books in the first place?
    - Xylakant 9y ago
      Up until now it was a no-brainer to identify with project Gutenberg, so the volunteers might have exposed themselves already. It probably still is, since the project complied with the court order. It’s mentioned in the plaintiffs argument which at least raises the possibility. So they might or might not be identifiable, but that question only matters for enforcement, not for the question of jurisdiction.
weinzierl 9y ago
First, I did not say they are not subject to German law. I said that if they argue that Copyright status in another country is irrelevant [1], that the copyright status in one country is not impacted or enforceable or otherwise relevant in other countries [2], that any attempts at enforcement of the judgement would need to occur in the US Court system and that the German Court has overstepped its jurisdiction [4], the only logical consequence would have been to just ignore a lawsuit filed in Germany. Why not wait and see if the publisher brings the case to a US court or follows the WIPO process? What harm could it do? [1] Copyright status in another country is not relevant to the legitimate ability of Project Gutenberg -- or anyone/anything in the US -- to make any use of these books. [2] International treaties explicitly and unambiguously support PGLAF's legal guidance as described above: that the copyright status in one country is not impacted or enforceable or otherwise relevant in other countries. [3] any attempts at enforcement of the judgement would need to occur in the US Court system [3] Because the German Court has overstepped its jurisdiction, and allowed the world's largest publishing group to bully Project Gutenberg for these 18 books [..] [4] The legal guidance PGLAF received is that US law requires that such proceedings would have taken place in the US, and in fact any attempts at enforcement of the judgement would need to occur in the US Court system. PGLAF already informed Plaintiff and the German Court that the US Court system is the appropriate venue for Plaintiff's concerns. Plaintiff declined.
- raverbashing 9y ago
  Ah that's a better explanation Let's think of something different: I print one of those books and send it to Germany. I assume the person receiving the book could be subject to prosecution. But if the company that did that is also present in Germany (offers services in Germany) then I suspect they would be held responsible as well.

weinzierl 9y ago

The whole paragraph reads: > The decision to acceed to the German Court's order to make items inaccessible from Germany is intended to be a temporary appeasement, while the appeal occurs - this is because the German appeal Court will likely look disfavorably on PGLAF if it shows contempt for the German Court. Ultimately, PGLAF seeks to establish that any complaints about copyright must be brought either to the US Courts (where PGLAF operates) or WIPO processes (as guided by international treaties). And continues: > Q: Is there anything that can be done about the situation? > A: Project Gutenberg is fighting for an appeal. Ideas about how to appeal the case in German, and any possible legal actions in the US, are welcome. You can reach Dr. Newby by email, gbnewby AT pglaf.org. It says they have no idea how to appeal the case in Germany and the paragraph above basically says they have no real intention anyway because they want to bring the case either to an US Court or to the WIPO. I am highly sympathetic with the PGLAF but their argumentation is completely incongruent. Either they accept the jurisdiction of the German court, then they should appeal in Germany and the appeasement makes sense, or they don't, then they should just ignore it completely.

smsm42 9y ago
PGLAF thinks that the German court is wrong. However, they would prefer to not have German court decision - even if they believe it is wrong - against them to be in power, since international treaties mean it can have consequences beyond Germany. Thus, they are fighting it in German court. In order to raise chances of winning, they choose not to openly flaunt German court decision - which they can always do later if it turns out resolving it within German justice system is a no go. It is a common thing to do - you can disagree with some decision being legal and still temporary abide by it in order to work within the judicial system and not put yourself outside it.
- weinzierl 9y ago
  > PGLAF thinks that the German court is wrong. They made that point in their article and they also made clear that this is not just their opinion but also that of their legal teams in the US and Germany. > However, they would prefer to not have German court decision - even if they believe it is wrong - against them to be in power, since international treaties mean it can have consequences beyond Germany. And that is my point. The best way to not have a German court decision would have been not to ask for one. They could have easily avoided the whole situation if they just ignored the lawsuit brought against them in Germany. > Thus, they are fighting it in German court. They are fighting in a German court, even if they could have avoided it, because they would prefer not to have a German court decision? That doesn't make any sense. > In order to raise chances of winning, they choose not to openly flaunt German court decision The way to avoid embarrassment on all sides would have been to ignore the lawsuit and point the publisher to the proper ways to handles this, namely either US court or WIPO. Being ignored by a US organization wouldn't have been a big deal neither for the German court nor the publishers, this happens all the time. I appreciate PGLAF highly, but what they did here just caused unnecessary drama. > - which they can always do later if it turns out resolving it within German justice system is a no go. Which would be the ultimate embarrassment for the German justice system, don't you think? > It is a common thing to do - you can disagree with some decision being legal and still temporary abide by it in order to work within the judicial system and not put yourself outside it. I agree with that, I just think that in this case there was no need for it. PGLAF could have avoided the situation without consequences.